Just another WordPress.com weblog

Obama passes Hate Bill

** Last week Prez Obama passed HR 1913 – the infamous HATE Bill. I have included two different articles and several informative videos…sigh. What else can I say about this?? The info below speaks enough. We are in the last days and evil abounds.. and will keep abounding til Yahushua returns.I am not against people who are gay – I am against our right to free speech being stripped away. I do not agree with people being physically or emotionally attacked for their sexual preferences, race, religion or color of skin..violence doesnt solve anything**

A “hate crimes” bill opponents claim will be used to crack down on Christian speech, even the reading of the Bible, was signed into law today by President Obama.

The Senate approved the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act by a vote of 68-29 on Oct. 22 after Democrats strategically attached it to a “must-pass” $680 billion defense appropriations plan.

Most Republicans, although normally strong supporters of the U.S. military, opposed the bill because it hands out federal money to states and local governments in pursuit of “preventing” hate crimes. The bill creates federal protections and privileges for homosexuals and other alternative lifestyles but denies those protections to other groups of citizens.

Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act at a White House ceremony today. Prior to signing the act into law, Obama spoke briefly of the hate crimes bill.

“After more than a decade, we’ve passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are,” he said. “I promised Judy Shepard when she saw me in the Oval Office that this day would come, and I’m glad that she and her husband, Dennis, could join us for this event. I’m also honored to have the family of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy who fought so hard for this legislation. I just want you all to know how proud we are of the work that Ted did to help make this day possible.”

American Family Association President Tim Wildmon warned that the new law “creates a kind of caste system in law enforcement, where the perverse thing is that people who engage in non-normative sexual behavior will have more legal protection than heterosexuals. This kind of inequality before the law is simply un-American.”

Wildmon said the legislation creates possible situations where pastors may be arrested if their sermons on sexuality can be linked in even the remotest way to acts of violence.

“It threatens free speech and freedom of religion and is totally unacceptable,” he said.

As WND reported, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by the proposed federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be

President-elect Barack Obama prioritizes passage of the freedom-stealing Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. High-level Democrats are also eager to limit free speech in media with the Fairness Doctrine. Earlier liberals, especially during the 60s and 70s, championed unbridled freedom of speech and expression. But Obama and “new liberals” encourage the opposite: hate and bias laws which restrict and even criminalize criticism of federally protected groups such as Jews and homosexuals. (1)

Should there be limits on freedom of speech? Or do the ethical foundations of America, the Bible and the Constitution allow us to say virtually anything we want?

To answer these and other questions about this now controversial subject, we must define “free speech.”

What is Free Speech?

Our right to free speech comes from our identity as free will beings, created in God’s image. Freedom to make moral choices is given every person at conception and is part of the eternal soul or spirit of man. The first instinct of our free will is to speak our desires and opinions. Speech naturally proceeds from the innermost thoughts of our minds and souls. Natural law also argues for freedom of speech. If animals can bark, sing, chirp at their pleasure and without restraint, shouldn’t human beings made in God’s image have at least as much right to speak? Our free speech, like our free will, is our most precious birthright from our Creator.

Yet this freedom must not be abused. In the Old Testament, God did command execution for those who abused their freedom of speech through blasphemy, advocating idolatry, or inciting rebellion. Yet He gave each person the freedom to commit those sins, if they chose.

God has authority to end verbal discord to Himself and His law whenever He pleases. He would not be God if He didn’t have that privilege. He is not required to bear with sin for any length of time, and the eternal law of a holy God is that any discord to Him must be instantly annihilated. Yet He doesn’t incinerate all sinners; even demons are given freedom to continue. God forbears, in love, to give mankind time to repent and become His friends.

In fact, God does much more than just forbear judgment. Jesus came down and died on a cross to bear our just punishment. When we trust in Christ, our Sin-bearer, He becomes our bridge of justification and reconciliation to a holy God.

When Speech Should Not Be Free

Just as there were some limits to freedom of speech for the Hebrews, so American law sets some limits. No one is allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater or to incite riot, or to libel or slander. American law does not tolerate speech that threatens public safety with “imminent harm,” and I believe speech that is blatantly corruptive should also be restricted. Scripture provides precedent for such limits, especially in the Old Testament. Young people should be legally protected from expression that is overtly pornographic, solicitous of pedophilia, sexually traumatizing or sadistically violent.

A. “This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law” – on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” “Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or ‘includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.’” See Legislation Detail: http://www.overcriminalized.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?id=441.
B. The bill includes the terms “Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” – ambiguous terms that the drafters of the bill have refused to define. It places those descriptions on par with race, color, religion and nationality.
C. As a matter of mechanics, the bill provides financial grants to state and local entities, provides additional personnel for investigation and prosecution, creates new federal criminal offenses, and creates a new evidentiary rule (no evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime”).
D. The bill is couched in terms of providing assistance to state local and Indian governments but it reserves the right to act if they fail to exercise their jurisdiction, or leave “demonstrably un-vindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”

II. Status

A. The version of the bill titled HR 1913 RH passed out of Judiciary committee on a 15-12 vote. It appears that the only change from the prior version, HR 1913 IH, was the dropping of the original section 2 – the findings section which included exaggerated figures of so-called hate crimes and included the interstate commerce language.
B. Rep. Steve King, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and others offered and argued persuasively for several amendments all of which were defeated. One that was particularly interesting was Steve King’s amendment to merely exclude pedophiles from the protected class based on “sexual orientation” – it was voted down 13-10.
C. If Rep. Barney Frank is to be believed, the bill will likely go to the floor of the house very quickly, probably within the next few weeks. [A House floor vote is expected to come as early as tomorrow, Wednesday, April 29–Editor.]

III. Major Concerns

While the bill’s supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection. Indeed, if the bill’s drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act. On closer analysis, the bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality. The particular concerns with the bill are numerous, but a few of the most troublesome are listed below.

A. Unequal Protection of Laws Under 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that all citizens be extended equal protection under the law. HR 1913 in effect creates two classes of victims, i.e. those who are a member of the preferred and protected class created by the bill and those who are not. Inclusion in the preferred class is to a great extent based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct, subjective gender, and subjective gender self-identity.

The practical effect of the carrot and the stick of federal funds, federal promotion and federal oversight is the promotion of the preferred class and the neglect of non-class members. Specifically, local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving these preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of less valuable victims. Additionally, with federal funds available when the requisite “hate” connection can be alleged, the bill creates a powerful incentive to force cases into the “hate crimes” mold. This heavily incentivized increase in reported “hate crimes” would artificially inflate the number and apparent prevalence of so called “hate crimes.” The natural and very political result of such a perceived increase in “hate crimes” would undoubtedly be an increase in the political influence of the preferred class, and as night follows day, a corresponding increase and expansion of even more intrusive “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation to address the perceived crisis.

B. Punishes Thought (Potentially Religious or Political thought) rather than Mere Intent To Commit a Crime.

1. Ironically hate is not even an element of a “hate crime” in the bill. Rather, the definition of a “hate crime” is borrowed from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – requiring only that the defendant selects a victim because of the membership or perceived membership in one of these proposed protected classes. Proponents of the bill argue that the criminal is being punished for his or her intent to terrorize an entire class of people (i.e. all homosexuals) but no such intent to terrorize is actually required. Indeed, despite the framing of the term “hate crime” the bill does not even require a showing of animus toward the victim or the preferred class. Under existing law, the criminal would be punished if he or she possessed the requisite intent to commit the act. The additional criminal fines and prison sentences that would be created by HR 1913 are based not on whether the defendant intended to commit the act but on whether the defendant considered the victim’s membership in the preferred class in choosing the victim. In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, HR 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed. As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought.

C. Wider Immediate Application than Claimed.

This bill will certainly be construed in light of existing federal law including specifically United States Code Title 18, Section 2, that says that : “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” (emphasis added). This is the feared immediate nexus between the speech of a pastor or radio commentator and the actions of a deranged parishioner or listener. Proponents of the bill argue that it clearly, under its own language, applies only to acts of violence. This argument is misleading and naïve in that it implies that criminal liability would be available only for the person physically committing the violent act, while ignoring completely the likelihood that courts, especially ideologically driven, activist courts, will impose criminal liability on those deemed complicit in the violent act whether or not they physically contributed to the act.

D. Federal Power Grab

The bill, if passed into law, would as a practical matter federalize virtually every sexual crime in the United States. This federalization would occur even in the absence of any evidence of failure by states and municipalities to prosecute. Under the bill, membership in one of the preferred classes does not have to be the impetus for the criminal act but merely a factor in the defendant’s selection of his victim. This is almost always the case. Muggers invariably choose little old ladies as victims precisely because they are little old ladies and unlikely to be able to fend them off. Under the bill, consideration of the gender of the victim effectively creates the potential for federal jurisdiction. Considering both the extreme breadth of the bill and the built-in incentives to bring crimes under the bill, the likely result is the practical federalization of large swaths of state and local criminal law.

E. Trend of Nationalization of State and Local Law and the Internationalization of Federal Law; And a Corresponding rise in Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian activity.

1. The recent report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) widely increased the number of people who may be classified as terrorists and who almost by definition would be members of hate groups. Under the HR 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive so long as a prosecutor can show that the speech or association was “specifically related” to the criminal act.

2. Substance and methods similar to that offered in the DHS report have recently been echoed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That group provides influential lists of alleged hate groups relied upon by state and federal law enforcement. The reports have begun to blend among its lengthy list of true hate-based groups such as neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan, other organizations based on little more than their opposition to homosexuality. The effect of listing a pro-family organization along side several neo-Nazi groups is to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association.

3. Additionally the appointment of Harold Koh as legal advisor to the State Department and the rise of acceptability of his stance that international laws should be used to interpret American laws, even among such figures as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, creates the danger and likelihood that judicial activism would further increase the power, reach, and tyrannical effect of HR 1913 by bringing its application in line with its counterparts in Canada, the Netherlands, etc.

4. Proponents of HR 1913 argue or imply that the law would provide greater protection for members of all faiths, presumably including Judaism and Christianity. The application of hate crimes laws in the countries they are most prevalent (and the countries to which Harold Koh would likely look for interpretive guidance), produce exactly the opposite result. The application of hate crimes laws in countries like the Netherlands experiencing the increased influence of Shariah – stringent Islamic religious law — is patently and consistently anti-Semitic. The most concrete example of this is the stark contrast in the application of the hate crimes laws in the Netherlands between those who criticize Shariah and those who call for violence against Israel and the Jewish people. For instance, Geert Wilders, who produced a 17-minute film critical of Shariah, is being vigorously prosecuted under the Netherlands’ hate crimes laws — while the blatant and violent anti-Semitism of others such as Dutch MP Harry van Bommel, who called for intifada against Israel earlier this year, and Doekle Terpstra, who sponsored an “Olive Tree Campaign” rally in Amsterdam where the participants chanted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas!” are apparently immune from hate crimes prosecution.

5. The same is likely true of the UN Anti-Blasphemy measures which realistically can be seen only to forbid criticism of Shariah while allowing wholesale anti-Semitism.

6. Christians who vocally oppose homosexuality and the state endorsement of homosexuality in Holland, Canada, and Brazil routinely receive similar treatment, finding themselves on the prosecuted and persecuted end of hate crimes legislation while the anti-Christian actions of other groups are ignored.

7. Historically an increase in Shariah influence and/or a rise in economic problems have consistently shown a corresponding rise in anti-Semitism. The growing national and international acceptance and preferential treatment of the pro-homosexual movement has likewise shown a similar increase in anti-Christian activity (such as the threats of violence against Proposition 8 supporters in California and the recent attack launched by homosexual activist Perez Hilton against a contestant in the Miss USA competition). Were the United States under the leadership of Harold Koh, Janet Napolitano, etc., to follow the hate crimes trends and precedents established in the international community, the actual application of HR 1913 and its certain coming hate crimes and hate speech progeny, would likely undermine the rights of Christian and Jewish citizens.

F. Incremental Move Toward Making Speech a Federal Crime.

1. All of the above can reasonably be expected to lead to a quickly spawned progeny of hate crime legislation demanding greater and greater control of thought, expression and association. This is the pattern in the international community. HR 1913 would firmly brand one’s thoughts on the issues of human sexuality as potentially criminal activity. The logical next step is to recognize the “harmful impact of hateful speech” on preferred classes and to begin outlawing speech that would communicate what members of preferred classes find offensive. Proponents of HR 1913 have argued that this is preposterous but tellingly, in the April 23, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearings on HR 1913, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said unequivocally that “We need to protect victims against hateful words, hateful acts and even violent acts.” (emphasis added).

IV. Action Steps

Encourage constituents to participate in immediate, continued, and persistent contact with both personal senators and congressmen and those of other districts and states (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121; or 202-224-3121; www.congress.org).

Support, promote and demand a filibuster if the measure reaches the floor of the Senate.

Record and hold to account every member of Congress supporting the bill in the coming elections.

Actively oppose the confirmation of Harold Koh.

Vigorously hold Janet Napolitano responsible for the libelous report issued by the DHS.